EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, January 28, 1997

.0902

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you once again to our hearings on the proposed regulations under the Firearms Act.

We are beginning this morning with three witnesses, and I want to welcome each of the three and thank them for coming. We appreciate their contribution.

Here in Ottawa with us on Parliament Hill are John G. McAvity, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, and Richard Feltoe, coordinator of the British North America Living History Association. With us from Toronto, I believe, is Brenda Brownlee, the curator of the Hamilton Military Museum.

Welcome, Ms Brownlee. Can you hear us?

Ms Brenda Brownlee (Curator, Hamilton Military Museum): Yes, I can; thank you very much.

The Chairman: What we're going to be doing is asking for presentations from each of our three witnesses, following which we hope the witnesses will entertain questions from members of the subcommittee.

I'd like to begin with Mr. McAvity. Sir, if you are prepared, please begin.

Mr. John G. McAvity (Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to commend this committee, not only for giving us another opportunity to discuss the concerns of museums as they apply under the regulations, but also for having such extensive hearings on the regulations. A number of us were concerned that the regulations and the hearings may have actually been a fairly pro forma process and may have been pushed through. So we're very pleased to have this opportunity to come back. Thank you.

On the other hand, I guess I must say I regret that we are having to be back here once again. We appeared before the House of Commons on Bill C-68 and we appeared before the Senate committee concerning the bill. There seems to have been an ongoing series of problems, which we feel have really been a result of the lack of understanding of museums and their very special place in society.

.0905

We do not feel museums are above the law, but quite frankly we feel they are ahead of the law in respect of this piece of legislation. You might ask why I say that. Perhaps it sounds a bit brazen, but in many ways museums uphold all of the principles of Bill C-68. Our collections are thoroughly locked up. They're under very high security standards. They are not held by the public. They are not fired. Ammunition is generally separately locked up, not available.

The materials that go into museums stay there permanently. We're not like a Canadian Tire store, where materials come in and go out. Materials are entered into the permanent collection forever. So we really regret that a more thorough understanding of museums has not been possible under this particular bill.

I might mention that under the previous legislation - I can't recall what the number was, but it was the legislation passed in 1992 - there was special exemption for museums.

Nevertheless we have made some progress. We are more pleased with some of the requirements that have come into the regulations. There are still fees applying to most activities of museums, although I suppose they are less than what they are for businesses and some other suppliers. They are still, however, fees that will be a financial burden to museums.

You may be interested in the letter I received from Allan Rock dated January 29, 1996, in which he raised the concerns over financial matters and said Bill C-68 would not have a negative financial or administrative impact on museums. That led me to conclude there would be no fees whatsoever or there would be other exemptions for museums, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Today, through the magic of television, with my colleague in Toronto, I'd like to turn your attention to the brief that has been prepared. We have really only focused on several areas of ongoing concern, the first being the definition of ``museum eligibility''. We're offering some recommendations that we think would help improve that definition from what presently exists.

Secondly, we have some concerns regarding the display requirements in the legislation. These display requirements are quite onerous and in fact inappropriate. They may be appropriate to a gun store, where chains need to be placed around firearms, but we feel this is inappropriate in a museum setting, where there already exist security requirements.

Transportation is another area of concern, as well as the licensing fees I've referred to.

At this point it might be fair to turn the presentation over to Brenda in Toronto and have her amplify on a couple of these major points. Then we can open it up for questions, if that's all right.

The Chairman: Ms Brownlee.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you.

We're particularly concerned about the display requirements, as John mentioned. What we want to avoid is virtually every museum in the country having to write to their chief provincial firearms officer for an alternative display measure. This is going to be cumbersome and certainly something the chief provincial firearms officers don't want to get into.

The choice is either using the choices laid out for gun shops and general businesses or writing to the chief provincial firearms officer. In our presentation we've offered a couple of suggestions that could perhaps go into the legislation to cut down the number of museums that would have to go in for a special request.

Keep in mind particularly conservation needs. There may not be a trigger guard on a firearm to put a trigger lock on or to put a chain through, particularly older weapons, keeping in mind particularly that for the purposes of display, antiques are considered to be firearms. We're talking about treasures from the Seven Years War or earlier coming under these onerous display requirements. We just want some consideration given.

To spend thousands of dollars getting a period room setting exactly the way it should be for a particular time period and then the shotgun over the mantelpiece having to be placed in with a trigger lock or chained down or something.... We need to come up with some reasonable alternatives to that.

.0910

With the transportation requirements, we're looking particularly at prohibited firearms. At present there's no definition of transportation. So we're concerned that if we simply have to take it two or three kilometres down the street to an off-site storage area, we don't want to have to seal the containers and have walkie-talkies in the car and all of those requirements. We'd like some kind of definition for transportation. As well, if you're moving it between two museums, for example, in the same city, you're not on the highway, you're not making stops for gas or lunch or anything else. So have a look at that.

John has mentioned the other two, the fees and the definition of museum. We have offered a suggestion. We hope this will meet with your approval.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Brownlee.

Do you wish to continue, Mr. McAvity?

Mr. McAvity: I think at this point we'd be prepared to entertain questions, thank you.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you both very much.

I'd like to now go to Mr. Feltoe.

Mr. Richard Feltoe (Coordinator, British North America Living History Association): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to repeat Mr. McAvity's statement that we appreciate the opportunity to make this statement, but regret the fact that we have to. We've gone through it twice before. We hope we're at the point where we'll get some results.

What the living history museums and the re-enactors have a major concern with under the terms of the bill with its current regulations, as written, is that we have a series of definitions and exemptions that create contradictions that make a farce of the whole affair.

For example, under the terms of the definition in the bill and the regulations that go with it we have a situation that, from my point of view.... For example, I have an original musket, I have a reproduction musket and I have access to a replica. By the terms of the bill and the regulations, I can utilize that original without registration, without having to take the certification course. If I have that replica, non-firing, I can run around a field and go ``bang''. No problem. I don't have to register it, don't have to worry about it. If I happen to be paid by an historic site and be an employee of theirs, I can make use of modern reproductions, and I'm exempted. If, on the other hand, I am a volunteer engaged in lawful pursuit of my hobby, trying to help that site, I am not exempt.

What is the difference, then? My employment status? Is that the terms by which exemptions from the law are based, whether you're employed or not employed by a museum?

Since we have all these exemptions, we looked to the justice department to give us a reasoning as to why. They came up with two ``reasons'', as they put it. One, there's a difference between an original and a reproduction, and two, nobody would fire an original. They're too valuable. Reproductions are meant to be fired.

That may sound fine. However, if we take the first statement at face value - and we did ask them what their definition of ``difference'' was, and they wouldn't give us an answer - we can only presume that it's somehow based upon the date of the manufacture being prior to or after 1898, which is how an antique is defined. It means there must have been something happening around that date that makes a difference.

According to our references and studies, the source of that original 1898 date to distinguish antiques was derived from the U.S. military and its introduction of a new weapons system at that time. By this introduction, weapons incorporating the pre-1898 technology were considered inferior and classed as obsolete. Thus, by this definition it is the technology that was being used as the foundation of the classification. The date was merely a reference point.

.0915

Equally by this definition, we argue that any firearms produced after 1898 but incorporating only pre-1898 technologies - with all of their limitations and inefficiencies, which are historically accurate reproductions - must therefore be obsolete in their own right, since a reproduction is, by definition, a duplicate of the original it reproduces. The actual date of manufacture becomes irrelevant.

Therefore, we state that reproductions should also be granted exemption as there is in reality no practical difference between originals and reproductions.

For the edification of the committee I have brought my personal pieces with me. One is an original and one is a reproduction. You can see for yourself what differences there are, if any.

With regard to the second statement, we were shocked to learn that the justice department felt that no one would fire an original since they're too valuable but felt that reproductions are meant to be fired. We think that means the justice department is either under the impression that original firearms were not meant to be fired or it believes that there's some mystic or mythical gun fairy - the Tinkerboom - who's going to come down and zap you if you fire your original, because there's going to be a financial loss.

Of course, ladies and gentlemen, the reality is that originals can be perfectly functional for the purpose of firing and within our certain knowledge are currently being used for that purpose.

I don't have any ammunition, but if I had brought some I could take those two outside for you and fire my original any number of times. Within a week, I could get you 100 men with originals to fire them to show you that originals can be fired. But I don't want to and I don't need to because all you have to do is look at the regulations themselves and see that the government recognizes that such is the case.

Under the regulations, at page 15, section 3, it stipulates that a certain number of sections with respect to firearms do not apply ``when they are used or handled by individuals in the course of the following activities when they are lawful''. And one of those is ``participating in historical re-enactments''. It states that antique firearms should only be stored, displayed or transported if they are unloaded.

So they have said that antiques are part of historical re-enactments and that you should only store them or transport them when they're unloaded. The question, then, is why do you load a firearm? Isn't it the case that you probably load it in order to fire it? And isn't it the case that if it can be loaded, it can therefore be fired? Therefore, these regulations say that antiques, originals, can be loaded and fired. Therefore, the definitional difference that says you don't fire originals, you only fire reproductions, falls apart under their own argument.

The fact that these original firearms can be and are fired reveals that the justice department made its original recommendations and proposals under false suppositions and misleading facts. That creates some very bad contradictions. It leaves us open to discrimination, because I, as a volunteer, cannot use my reproduction without certification, without going through the course, but as an employee I could.

It means that any individual who wishes to avoid the hassles of registering their pieces and registering themselves through a certification course, which in many cases has basically no application at all to black powder firearms, will in fact be encouraged to go around the law by using their originals.

This is something that we have tried for years to get out of the circuit. We're talking about firearms that are 200 years old or more. The metal in them is suspect and it may be liable to explosion if loaded and fired. Yet this legislation and the regulations that go with it exempt those originals. So somebody can say ``Fine, I'll use my original.'' Thus, that creates a dangerous situation in this law. It encourages the unsafe use of firearms. It also leaves a big gap. There is no explanation as to what happens when one has an original or an antique with a few parts that are broken or missing. You can't get any more original pieces so you use reproduction pieces to fix it up and make it fireable again.

.0920

I asked the justice department officials where they draw the line. They said they supposed I would have to decide that for myself. I'd love to see that at a customs border. How far is an original an original and how far is a reproduction a reproduction? When you start crossing the pieces over, where's the line? There are too many gaps.

What are the consequences of this, ladies and gentlemen? First of all, we are now putting onto the registry of firearms thousands of entries relating to reproductions and their obsolete technologies. Is this likely to affect the crime statistics? I hardly think so. Try picking up one of those muskets over there and imagine walking into a 7-Eleven. Imagine getting a misfire and saying to the clerk, ``Hang on a second, I just have to reload. I'm waiting for 20 seconds while you get your things in order.... Right, we can go ahead now, thanks.'' It doesn't work.

The last time a crime was committed using a black powder weapon was in 1909. Isn't 88 years of crime-free statistics enough to show that these things are not a threat?

For the Canadian re-enactors there is the imposition of costs and bureaucracy inherent to the registration and the certification to take courses that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're dealing with.

Oh, I could certainly learn how to disassemble an Uzi and I could certainly learn how to climb in and out of a boat with a pump-action shotgun, but that's not what I'm dealing with. I'm dealing with a flintlock, muzzle-loading musket. When I go to certification courses and talk to the lecturers most of them get a glazed look. They've never even dealt with it. But I have to take the certification course before I can actually make use of my musket. Is that something we want to see?

But the cruncher and the real horror, I'd say, that's coming out of these regulations is what's going to happen to our fellow re-enactors who are across the border, the Americans. They're in exactly the same position with respect to coming across the border with originals and reproductions. Those who carry originals can get through with no problems. Those who happen to have reproductions have to go through a rigmarole and procedure that is going to be horrendous and will basically stop them dead.

Here we're talking about the regulations on pages 4 and 5, the non-resident 60-day possession, whereby the following is what an American is going to have to do to volunteer to participate in our historical re-enactments. First of all, they are going to have to stipulate well in advance that they're going to come because they're going to have to write to the historic site asking for permission. That historic site is going to have to write up individual letters of certification that the individuals have to receive in order to be able to take them to the border.

That means that any individual who is on shift work or who is not certain about being able to come until within the last week or week and a half is going to be unable to get across the border because he's not going to be able to get the certification in time. That eliminates a huge number of individuals.

Secondly, no hosting site or individual has access to comprehensive or completely up-to-date lists of every single re-enactor who could potentially attend their event and no hosting site or individual can possibly undertake to know them for the purposes of vouching for them. Because that's what this is. It's a vouching system with all of its implied liability, especially when those participants are new to the hobby, when they have not previously attended a particular event, when the site's hosting an event for the first time, or when its coordinator is new to the activities.

Thus, we eliminate every new recruit and every new re-enactment group unless they can persuade the historic site or the hosting event to trust them enough to give them a letter vouching for them.

And under the regulations of fees, after they have this letter they have to send away for forms or turn up at the border and start filling out forms. And they have to pay $30. What's not recognized is that historical re-enactments take place regularly throughout the year, and many U.S. re-enactors volunteer their time and efforts to participate in Canadian events throughout the season, which can take place anywhere from February to late October. As a result, they will inevitably be forced to repeatedly reapply and pay for those renewals, thus multiplying the costs by a factor of four or five times each year. So we're not talking about $30, we're talking about $120-plus.

.0925

This is further complicated by the fact that each renewal will obviously need to be accompanied by this letter of certification from somebody new. Why? Well, if somebody gets a letter from an event in February and then reapplies in May or June, is customs going to accept that letter from February as the value by which they're going to be recertified? I don't think so. On top of that, that means four or five individual letters from four or five different sites for each and every single person.

What sorts of numbers are we talking about here? To give you three historic events, for the last ten or twelve years Fort Erie has done re-enactments. In 1995 they had 150 American re-enactors participating for one weekend. Last year, because the Americans thought the results of the regulations were in, they had 15. They had 20,000 visitors to that event. Bang, gone.

In July 1995 they held the 250th anniversary of the first siege of Louisbourg. There were 1,500 re-enactors - with 75% of them from America - and there were 20,000 visitors. They had to close the roads around the site because they couldn't accommodate all the people. And 75% of them were Americans. Bang, gone.

In 1994, in Quebec City, a celebration of the defence of Quebec City against the 1776 invasion by Benedict Arnold drew a crowd of 40,000 people. Some 95% of the re-enactors were Americans. In 1998 they are hoping to have another event. Their estimation of how many re-enactors they're going to have is 1,225. Bang, that event is not going to happen if 98% of those re-enactors are going to have to go through that rigmarole. They've already told us so. We've already seen it in the numbers of American re-enactors at Canadian sites that have dropped off.

Think about the compound problems caused to these historic sites through the loss of the money that those re-enactors and the public bring in, sometimes in rural areas down in New Brunswick, where the money is needed. Thus we have the unpleasant fact that these American re-enactors are not only being insulted by being implicitly labelled as untrustworthy to come to Canada without being vouched for by their hosts, but they must also pay repeatedly for this insult in order to volunteer their time, efforts, and knowledge for the benefit of Canadian heritage sites and Canadian re-enactors. It doesn't take a genius to recognize what they're going to tell us to do.

But who's going to really suffer? Well, the museums are going to suffer. They're not going to have these individuals able to do the re-enactments for them for just the cost of a few meals. Worst of all, it's going to be the Canadian people who are going to suffer. They are going to lose the opportunity to share in a celebration of our heritage by watching or participating in living history events just because the government would not be willing to exempt the reproductions into an exception alongside their original antique gun clause.

What are our recommendations? In the legislation, part III, clause 84 defines ``antique firearm'' as ``any firearm manufactured before 1898 that was not designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition and that has not been redesigned to discharge such ammunition, or any firearm that is prescribed to be an antique firearm''.

.0930

We would recommend that under that term, this committee request that an Order in Council be issued whereby reproduction firearms duplicating those antiques as defined in paragraph 84(a) be prescribed to be antique firearms and exempt from the regulations and legislation. That is what we hope. That is what we are desperate for. And I am happy to answer any questions and to explain about the pieces I have.

It may be that some of you have thought that the costume I'm wearing is for theatricality. No. I am proud of the heritage I represent. This uniform is what was worn by a Canadian militia unit that fought against an invader. Men died wearing these uniforms. We want to commemorate their work, their sacrifice. That is why I wear it: in honour of them. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Feltoe.

We'll now go immediately to questioning, beginning with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. McAvity, Ms Brownlee et Mr. Feltoe, I thank you for your excellent presentations that bring to our attention some unforeseen effects of the regulations.

Mr. Feltoe, as you know, a Quebecer's motto is Je me souviens. I'm therefore very pleased to see that, as your uniform shows, you remember as well.

Mr. McAvity, you drew our attention to a few points and talked about museum eligibility. You recommend that museums be subjected to eligibility criteria but that they don't have to join the Canadian Museums Association. Could you tell us the reasons for that position? Is it to abide by the principle of freedom of association?

[English]

Mr. McAvity: Yes. Membership in my organization, as much as I would love it to be mandatory, is simply not. We're not the only museum association. We're the only federal or national one, but there are provincial associations,

[Translation]

for instance the Société des musées québécois and

[English]

the Association Museums New Brunswick. We feel that individuals could join either.

The key thing we're changing is that the regulations at present say an individual must join one of these organizations. We think that's relatively meaningless. Anyone can join. They are free to join. There is really no value judgment being attested to their qualifications of joining.

What we are more concerned about - and we always have been - is that bona fide museums are recognized and that they qualify under any considerations here. I say bona fide museums because we want to make sure that individuals do not try to take advantage of any considerations for museums under this legislation by setting up their own private museum. Anyone could literally do that. They could put a shingle out on the road saying it's Joe's Museum. To us it might sound like a museum, but it isn't a museum. They would not be meeting the professional requirements we are concerned about.

That's why we say in here that the institution would qualify for institutional membership or qualify to be in our directory. We publish a directory and we police it quite closely to ensure that only bona fide institutions get listed in there. They must be of a public, non-profit nature. They're charities or the equivalent of charities, being under provincial or municipal control, etc.

If the museums would like to join my organization, that would be fine. We have about 2,000 members already and would always welcome a few more.

.0935

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you. You also mention, with regard to the displaying of firearms, that the rules you would be subjected to under the regulations would be detrimental, among other things, to the aesthetic appeal of firearms and possibly even to their integrity.

I take it that museums are currently taking very good care of firearms they display and that you don't lose any. There probably are not very many thefts. Could you tell us whether any firearms were removed, lost or stolen in recent years? By what means do you secure your firearms and in what way are those means inferior to what is being proposed or to other means that you could implement? In short, what do you recommend?

[English]

Mr. McAvity: Security is taken very seriously in museums. After all, think of the valuable treasures that are in the institutions, whether very valuable paintings or other historical artifacts. Security is very important. Institutions meet minimum security standards, and special requirements have been designed for museums.

In terms of thefts, I cannot think of any firearms that have ever been stolen from a museum - none. I'm not aware of any. In fact, the number of thefts from Canadian museums is very minor. I think that's largely due to the excellent and professional standards that are in place.

These requirements, if they are brought in, would be very onerous for us and in many cases inappropriate. For example, there are period room settings or period re-enactments of trenches. The York-Sunbury Historical Society Museum in Fredericton is one that comes to mind. It has a warfare trench. These scenes are developed to be realistic and it simply would not be realistic to put chains around the firearms and chain them - I don't know what - around the mannequin's arm or whatever these chains are going to be secured to. It's an excellent example of how inappropriate it is. It will be the very same situation at the Canadian War Museum just a couple of blocks from here, and at hundreds of other museums across the country.

That's really our concern. We've proposed that special requirements be brought in that would more or less make most of the security steps invisible to the public. I think these are quite well outlined in the brief.

Brenda, would you like to add?

Ms Brownlee: Yes. Thank you, John.

One of the other concerns is not only for historical accuracy in the display where a diorama or a period room is concerned, but also conservation. A firearm does not necessarily have to be very old to be in a delicate condition, to have parts missing that may make putting the chain through the trigger guard, as specified in the regulations, inappropriate. That leaves us with very little option except to write to the chief provincial firearms officer.

Traditionally, most museums have handled the very oldest artifacts, such as a War of 1812 musket, by simply placing them in an exhibit case. They are usually not chained or tied down. We are suggesting that if you wish this, we would tie them down in some fashion to avoid a smash-and-grab, possibly with a thin wire that's been coated with plastic to protect the wood finish. A heavy chain would damage it. These artifacts could be on display for several years as opposed to a gun shop, which may have them on display for only a week or two before they're sold.

We don't wish to have anything in an insecure way. We're just as concerned. Museums must have an electronic alarm system if they're going to display firearms for after-hours security. We're suggesting that if there's an open-room setting, the museum should put in a local alarm under a rug or something so that we know if somebody enters the room and the staff can respond immediately, as well as having it tied down in some fashion that best suits the individual artifact.

As artifacts other than in room settings can be changed after a few years, we could be writing over and over again to say that we've taken off firearm A and now we'd like to display firearm B in this manner. We see this as bureaucracy.

.0940

With the restricted and prohibited firearms, it's the same thing. We would like to have them sealed up in either a sealed diorama or in a locked case and then tied down in the most appropriate manner. If we can hide it we can strengthen the type of material used. If it's in an exhibit case it may be a little less, but it would be anchored directly to the exhibit case. They're going to have to come in with pliers and start cutting, whether it's a chain or a wire or anything else.

I hope this explains it to you satisfactorily.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: I know that museums have an expertise and a know-how that are not reflected in the regulations as written and I know as well that your recommendations are based upon that expertise and that know-how and should be accepted so as to complement the regulations and bring them more in tune not only with the real safety requirements but also with what museums are aiming for, i.e. displaying weapons to the public as aesthetically as possible.

I'd now like to turn to the transportation of firearms. You mentioned that the regulations as written would inconvenience you and you are suggesting slight changes which you regard as more appropriated, for instance when you have to move a firearm from a museum to a storage site in the same community. Could you point out the practical day-to-day disadvantages of the proposed regulations and tell us about your current practices which, I presume, have always been safe?

[English]

Mr. McAvity: I would defer to Brenda here. She can bring very practical examples to that as curator of the Hamilton Military Museum, which is a very well-respected military museum in Canada. She can speak in a really day-to-day fashion as to the implications of the transit recommendations.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, John.

We're looking particularly at section 11, pages 18 to 20, and section 12, pages 30 to 32. This is the transportation of prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns and the transportation of restricted weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition.

Among the regulations that are currently being proposed are suggestions that they not just be in a locked box but the box be sealed; that the employee who accompanies the shipment have an ability to communicate, using a walkie-talkie or cellphone; and that we maintain a record of the shipment. We're perhaps moving it two or three kilometres down the road from the museum to an off-site storage. There is no definition of what transportation is.

This ability to seal firearms that are prohibited makes sense if you're transporting them from, for instance, the Hamilton Military Museum to the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, where you know the truck is going to have to stop for gas and the trucker is going to have to get out and have lunch and so on, and you want it well secured. It's a very onerous requirement if you're simply moving from a museum to its own off-site storage area.

To use another example, the Glenbow Museum in Calgary frequently loans prohibited firearms to the Canadian Museum of the Regiments, also in Calgary. To have to seal it, get the walkie-talkies and so on to move it a few kilometres across town is very difficult.

Ironically, just as an example, the Canadian Museum of the Regiments is a Department of National Defence museum. They're completely exempt from the legislation. They can return it in any fashion that they deem suitable through the Department of National Defence.

So we suggest that for moving short-haul transportation like that, we follow the restrictions for restricted weapons. Yes, we will lock the case and take all the precautions we would for a prohibited handgun or a general restricted weapon, but not these extra measures proposed in sections 11 and 12 unless the transportation is long distance.

Essentially what we're suggesting is that some kind of definition of what transportation is be included, whether it's a set number of kilometres beyond which you have to go the extra distance. I'm sure this has been written for firearms dealers who are shipping prohibited weapons across the country or across the province, which we would not be doing.

I hope this explains that satisfactorily.

.0945

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Brownlee and Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony this morning.

Inasmuch as these regulations and the bill itself are supposed to be directed at the enhancement of public safety, I'd like to know if, in the history of your organizations, there's ever been a threat to public safety or if there now is a threat to public safety as a result of your organizations' handling of firearms?

Perhaps we could start with Mr. McAvity.

Mr. McAvity: There's been absolutely no problem. There have been no thefts, no deaths, and no abuses of firearms in the history of museums, which is a very long history in this country.

In fact I think quite the opposite, that the museums could be playing a very important educational role to the 60 million visitors that come into our facilities. We could demonstrate the standards we already exercise over the care, cataloguing, and safe handling of firearms. We're in an excellent position to demonstrate to Canadians safer ways of using or appreciating firearms.

Mr. Feltoe: From the historical re-enactment perspective, I've been in the hobby for over 18 years. I've attended literally hundreds of events right across this province of Ontario, in Quebec, and down in the United States, and I have never heard a single instance of any firearm being used in the commission of any threat or assault. Not one has been stolen or removed.

As the British North America Living History Association, we're a collective of re-enactment groups and historic sites that do re-enacting. We have put together a series of codes that our members apply to themselves, right down to the size of the charges we use, the distance at which they can be used on the field in presentations, and how the weapons are to be dealt with off-site, in transportation, during the event, and so on.

Security and safety are absolutely paramount in our organization and in our sister organizations that represent other historical time periods. As I've said, 88-odd years without a single crime being committed by the use of the weapons we employ says to us they are not a threat in any way, shape, or form for any criminal activity.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, if they don't pose a threat to public safety, why are your organizations being regulated?

Mr. Feltoe: Being regulated by ourselves or by the - ?

Mr. Ramsay: By this act and by the regulations.

Mr. Feltoe: For the simple reason that when it was first written up - and we had some discussions with the people in the first place - they were thinking primarily about modern weapons technologies, and they wrote up the laws on that basis.

Then it was brought to their knowledge that there happens to exist this field of activity where these old antiques and reproductions are being used. They said verbally, in many cases, ``That's not what this is about''. But when it came to writing it down on paper so it could be excused from the onerous nature of the regulations, they weren't prepared to go that far.

So these antiques were squeezed into clauses that had no application to their usage. They were caught. Now we're trying to get the exemption that's necessary to give us that little degree of freedom to do what we hopefully do best.

Mr. Ramsay: So in spite of the fact that your organization's activity with firearms poses and has posed no threat to the public safety, it's being extensively regulated by these regulations and Bill C-68. Is that what you're telling the committee?

Mr. Feltoe: It is being threatened with extinction.

Mr. Ramsay: If it's being threatened with extinction, what does this say to the cultural and historical activities you represent?

Mr. Feltoe: It makes us very sad. I can't say more than that. I speak as an individual and as part of a historic re-enactment group of private citizens. It makes us very sad.

.0950

Mr. McAvity: We've consistently asked to be exempted from this legislation right from the beginning. You ask why we are in it. When the legislation was being developed, the Minister of Justice did a series of cross-Canada consultations. We were never informed of those. We were never invited. I think it's an example of where the museum community simply was not considered to be a threat at all, and then later somebody woke up and realized that there were museums in this country and, by God, we'd better do something about them. So we were included. In the previous legislation in the early 1990s we were exempted from that, and now all of a sudden we're included in this.

So I think that's it. I really do not see the museums posing absolutely any threat whatsoever. This is going to increase our costs and increase our administration at a time when our funds are being cut dramatically by different levels of government. Museums are fighting for their survival, and the last thing we need is another set of regulations.

Mr. Ramsay: Did the justice department or any one in it justify to you the removal of the exemption that you refer to? My question is, why have they removed the exemption?

Mr. McAvity: We have consulted with them, but I've never felt the consultations have really been a true partnership. It has always been from the presumption that there is a concern and a risk to museums. I have never been able to uncover exactly what that is. The nature of the consultations we've had has basically been to say here's what we've drafted, what do you think, rather than sitting down with a true partnership saying, okay, there's a problem here, so let's see how we can resolve this. I regret to say that has never happened in the process.

Mr. Ramsay: Do you feel there is a disinterest in the value museums present to our society? Is it suggested to you in any communications with the officials of the justice department that they don't consider that museums representing firearms, historically and up to date, have any positive benefit to society and therefore can be sacrificed?

Mr. McAvity: No. I don't think I could go that far. The Minister of Justice has written to us and has expressed his support of the special consideration of museums. The difficulty is we've not really seen that completely put into effect through the act or through the regulations. Special sections have now been developed for museums. In our minds they're a good beginning, but they do not go far enough. We just regret that this had not taken place at an earlier date.

Mr. Ramsay: We've just heard Mr. Feltoe indicate that these regulations in the act will result in the extinction of his activities. What about museums? What impact will this have upon the continued existence and activity of museums?

Mr. McAvity: It's going to be costly. A number of sets of registration fees are involved here. They have been reduced from what they were first proposed to be, so I think it's very important to point that out; however, it is a new financial burden. There are new compliance regulations that will have to be met and so there is also an administrative cost. We are definitely seeing a cost increase both in terms of monetary issues and in terms of indirect expenses of time, administration, effort and training courses as well.

Mr. Ramsay: To what extent would this additional cost pose a threat to the survival of museums across the country?

Mr. McAvity: Perhaps what I should tell you is by way of what the financing of institutions is from the federal government. The federal government finances the national museums and Parks Canada directly. In addition, it gives out grants to the other museums in the country. Those grants should be at a level of $18 million per year. It's not a lot of money. That money has been reduced in the last three years to $7.9 million. So I think that will illustrate the type of financial stress the museums are under in this country.

Mr. Ramsay: I have one final question for Mr. Feltoe. Perhaps there are people in this country who don't like to see re-enactments where guns are going off and you're simulating injury and death. The guns go bang and people fall. Have you considered that?

.0955

Mr. Feltoe: Indeed, and one of the things we do during our re-enactments is this. We are not simply marching out, going bang, and dropping down dead. We exist within a context of historical re-enactments where we will go down on a Friday afternoon and set up our tents, set up our camps. My wife and my children, the families, come along, all in period. We teach at those sites, as volunteer teachers to the public, the history of cooking, clothing, social activities and games. The use of firearms is an integral part, but not the whole part.

So if somebody wants to talk about weaponry and how bad it is, we can talk not only about that but also about the injuries and the suffering that went on because of it and the sacrifice that came with the need to fight. We do not glorify war. We abhor war. Nobody hates war more than an old soldier does. I am not an old soldier, but from what I have done and what I have seen, I can imagine the horrors they went through, and nobody would fight to avoid war or any conflict more than I would.

Mr. Ramsay: You're representing part of history and the reason for that part of history and the effect of that part of history in Canada.

Mr. Feltoe: That's correct. That's what we try to achieve.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms Whelan is next.

Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to thank Mr. Feltoe for his presentation this morning and for taking the time to be with us.

I wanted to give you some bad news up front. You mentioned the cost of $30. It's actually $50 for American re-enactors when they're across the border. That's just so you're aware that this is one of the fees that have been proposed.

I do understand what your recommendation is on that. I'm wondering if maybe you could go into some detail as to the cost that's involved for volunteers to participate before any of these fees come into play.

Mr. Feltoe: Yes. The uniform I'm wearing right now represents the outfit that was worn by Canadian troops during the period from 1812 to 1815. It is made with materials that are duplicates of the originals - the belting and so on. We manufacture most of it ourselves. This coat runs at a cost of about $350. Every single button is hand cast. It's $1 a button. The pants are worth $70, the belting about $150, the shako maybe $75 to $100. When you get to the musket, for a reproduction we're talking nearly $1,000. That's just to stand up and walk around.

On top of that we have the costs of staying over a weekend. If you want a correct historical tent, it's $600 or $700. We're talking about cast-iron pots and other impedimenta that are necessary to cook on, worth $300 to $400.

We have estimated that the average man has to spend anything up to $3,000 of his own money to be able to volunteer his time to participate in these events properly. Then he has to pay for his own way there. Then he has to pay, in many cases, for food in addition to whatever the site might happen to provide for him. For his family it's the same thing.

The costs of commitment to this hobby are in the millions by the time you spread it out across the French-Indian war period, the American Revolutionary War period, the War of 1812 period and the American Civil War period. Those represent within the Canadian context the majority of the re-enactor communities. But there are many other smaller elements that talk about inter-war periods, the voyageurs and so on.

It is a significant cost to them on behalf of this country that could well be lost. On top of that, you have the costs that the historic sites are willing to cover to host these events - the publicity involved and the costs of the ammunition they supply in many cases.

Ms Whelan: Mr. Feltoe, I represent a riding that has historical Fort Malden, and we've had re-enactors there on a regular basis, not necessarily for the purpose of re-enacting battles. Quite a few times, especially through the seasonal ones, students are hired as well.

.1000

I'm familiar with the weekend that we entitle Military Days, during which between 5,000 and 10,000 visit the community I live in. The cost to the community to not have this attraction is going to be tremendous. In my own opinion, somewhere in the act and in the regulations, something got lost in terms of the fact of the benefits to communities, and the hours and hours of volunteerism, both for your group, for the people who are involved in keeping museums alive, and for the volunteer associations that support them.

With regard to your proposal, Mr. Feltoe, does your suggestion on the last page of your submission do enough? Does that solve the problems, or are you still going to be subject to regulations that are going to cause hardship?

Mr. Feltoe: Our feeling is that you don't have to change the law. God forbid, you don't have to write any more regulations to try to provide us with some kind of additional clause by which we can swiggle through. The clauses are already set up.

The law says that an original, an antique, is exempted. Underneath that, it says that any other firearm that is prescribed to be an antique can be exempted. If an Order in Council is put up so that a reproduction, by the definition in paragraph (a), is exempted, we will leave every historic site happy, every single re-enactor happy, all those American re-enactors happy, and the public able to see things. It doesn't mean anything in the way of having to do additional serious work. It's ``Get that statement''.

What it does do is also divide things up. There are re-enactors who do the periods of the late 19th century, the First World War, the Second World War. Likewise, they are doing a service to these museums, but they are a very small part of the overall haul. Likewise, they not only recognize, but endorse the fact that the firearms they're dealing with, being modern firearms, need to be maintained under the control and regulations that have been established.

It is these reproductions of antiques, which have absolutely no value elsewhere for any other function, that have been dropped in and left in while the originals are exempt and the replicas are exempt. These reproductions have not been, yet they are exactly the same thing. We need to get them smoothed into the line so that they are exempted too.

Ms Whelan: I have one final question. Do you feel that you were a part of the consultation process from the beginning, or is it very similar to what Mr. McAvity said, in that it came on towards the end?

Mr. Feltoe: It was very much the same, regrettably. I had 24 hours notice about a meeting between the CMA and the justice department, in which I was supposed to get something in. That's how I got into this. I got in basically because I was desperate not to see my hobby disappear.

I have a son. He's 15 years old now. When we first started this he was 12. When I told him what was happening, where I was going, he said, ``Daddy, does that mean I can't do my re-enacting any more?'' I said that I hoped it did not. He's still asking that question today.

Ms Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Feltoe.

The Chairman: You have some time left. Do you want to give it to Mr. Maloney?

Ms Whelan: Yes, please.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Mr. Feltoe, have there been any discussions with the justice department at all? Have they shown any receptiveness to coming your way?

Mr. Feltoe: We have had unofficial statements by them that they are thinking about possibly giving an exemption to reproductions on certain bases. For example, at one meeting they said they were thinking about giving an exemption to flintlocks. So I said does that mean that would also include the very early pieces, the matchlocks and the wheel locks from the 1600s and 1700s? Their answer: What, you want them too!

They say percussion caps mustn't be exempted because people use them for hunting. Well, the stuff they're using is completely different from what we're using. Because of this horror that somehow a percussion cap might be used for hunting, though, they want to cut it down.

We're afraid that we'll get to a point where what is actually exempted will be so small, it will be meaningless.

.1005

We're saying if the law says the antique in its own right, which is fully fireable and usable in every way, is a good enough definition to be exempted, then any reproduction that exactly duplicates that original should also be good enough by the law to be exempted, since it is by definition an exact copy of that original.

Mr. Maloney: You would be content if our committee made a recommendation that any antique reproduction that used pre-1898 technology would qualify as an antique?

Mr. Feltoe: Exactly as defined in the original law, yes. You'd see the biggest damned re-enactor party going if we could get that exemption, and you'd all be welcome at a re-enactor event in order to share our happiness.

Mr. Maloney: I've been there.

I have some sympathy for your position; there's no question. But all that being said, you've also stated here this morning that many brave men were killed wearing that uniform. So these antique weapons and the reproductions of them still have that capability, do they not?

Mr. Feltoe: Any firearm has that capability.

Mr. Maloney: Notwithstanding that it's been 88 years?

Mr. Feltoe: Yes. And I could pick up a two-by-four and put a nail through it, and it would have the capability to kill and injure.

The propensity or the likelihood for the firearm to be used for that purpose we feel is so insignificant that it does not pose any threat to the society or to the public at large. That is why we're asking for the exemption.

Mr. Maloney: As to safe gun-handling courses, are there not general principles about handling guns that apply to all weapons, whether they're spanking brand new or firearms from the 1800s?

Mr. Feltoe: There are, and in fact in the re-enactment community and the organization we deal with, absolutely no individual is allowed to handle that musket or go in the field and discharge it or in any way make use of it in a re-enactment until they are fully trained by their individual organization and vouched for to a safety officer, who supervises the battle displays.

Safety first. We will not ever point those firearms at each other in an event. We're always aiming down at the feet or off to the side. When we come within a certain distance we will cease firing, even though historically it's not correct. We will not put ourselves or the public in danger. We will never fire directly towards the lines of the public, just in case. Safety first.

Mr. Maloney: I have a question to Mr. McAvity or Ms Brownlee.

Your organization has recommended some flexibility with respect to displaying firearms in period rooms, etc. Wouldn't the regulations allow this flexibility by having to go to the chief firearms officer, as is necessary now? If you receive authorization in writing from the CFO, would this not give you the flexibility, as opposed to giving you a blanket flexibility just because you're a member of your organization?

Mr. McAvity: Yes, you're right; there is that clause. We're expecting, however, that there's going to be a tremendous backlog in the number of requests. Literally hundreds and hundreds of requests from museums will then have to be processed. We're concerned about the inefficiency that will develop and the administrative burden, so it would be easier just to go right ahead. After all, as we've said, museums haven't been a problem at all, so why have this requirement there? Our suggestion is really just of a practical nature.

Brenda, would you like to add anything to that?

Ms Brownlee: John, you've covered it. We are trying to cut down the number of museums that would need to write to the chief provincial firearms officer. But there's no guarantee, once that process starts, that the chief provincial firearms officers will want to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. They may just say no, because they might be dealing with considerable volume.

Then every time you want to change a display, a museum that may have a very high percentage of firearms - that's not most of the museums; that would be a minimal number - every time they change an individual firearm in, say, a case of firearms, they may have to go back to the chief provincial firearms officer if the display method they were using for the previous weapon is not suitable for the next weapon that goes out on display.

So we do see a bureaucracy here, and we're trying to make it efficient, because we're sure the chief provincial firearms officers have better and more complex matters to deal with than the individual exhibition of a firearm in a museum.

Thank you.

.1010

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Brownlee, Mr. McAvity, and Mr. Feltoe. We've certainly appreciated your time and very much appreciated and enjoyed your presentations. Thank you for taking the time to come and be with us this morning.

We will now have a five-minute break while we examine the firearms Mr. Feltoe has brought for us to see. We will be resuming in five minutes' time.

.1011

.1017

The Chairman: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We're now in a position to resume our hearings.

I want to thank Mr. Feltoe for kindly bringing his firearms for us to view and giving us a much better appreciation of exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about antiques and reconstructions.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses from the Coalition for Gun Control, Ms Wendy Cukier and Ms Heidi Rathjen, and Mr. Don McLean from the Winnipeg Police Service.

We would like to have your presentation, Ms Cukier, following which undoubtedly you'll be open to questions. Thank you very much.

Ms Heidi Rathjen (Vice-President, Coalition for Gun Control): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Coalition for Gun Control is a non-profit organization. We represent over 350 local, provincial, and national organizations from across the country, in every province, in rural areas and in urban areas. We represent educational groups, police groups, municipal groups, health care groups, experts in crime prevention and suicide prevention, women's organizations, legal organizations, and various other community groups.

All these groups have endorsed their common position, which contains principles and specific measures for gun control. We are defending this position today.

I'd like to pass the presentation to Wendy Cukier, president of the coalition.

Ms Wendy Cukier (President, Coalition for Gun Control): Thank you very much, Heidi.

We're very pleased to be here today. We've appeared before various parliamentary committees before and argued very strenuously in support of the principles of Bill C-68.

Today we want to focus our attention on the regulations and the specifics of the regulations, but I want to reiterate four or five points, because having heard reports of the testimony that's been before you in the last couple of days, I believe it may be important to get these points once again on the record.

.1020

The first point that is critical to remember when we're looking at the regulations as well as the legislation is that based on the best available evidence, the largest percentage of firearms seized in crime in Canada are rifles and shotguns - 47% according to the working group study. Of the handguns seized in crime, which represent 20% of the overall sample, almost half of them were at one time legally owned. The third point is that almost as many replicas and airguns are seized in crime as handguns in this country. So it's very important to remember that replicas and airguns do present a problem in terms of public safety.

The other important point to remember - and this has been visited in our previous briefs and you'll certainly be hearing it from many of the experts who will testify before the committee - is that there is a direct link between access to firearms and to firearms death and crime. One of the terrible ironies in Canada is that the provinces and areas that have the highest rates of firearms ownership also have the highest rates of firearms death.

We've brought with us appendix 3 in our brief just to remind people that 47% of the firearms recovered in crime in Canada are rifles and shotguns. If you look at the regional breakdowns, it's very clear that in rural areas far more rifles and shotguns are recovered than handguns. That's the primary point I want to get on the record with respect to the rationale for the legislation.

That is the last page of the appendices. I'll continue while Mr. Ramsay is looking for the appropriate paper.

I want to start by talking a little about safe storage. Again, I don't want to dwell in detail on the principle or the importance of safe storage. That was well established with the previous legislation. It's important to remember that safe storage is essential not only to help control the illegal gun trade - because we know that 3,000 guns a year are stolen and by definition used in crime - but also to prevent unauthorized access, particularly by young people. You'll be hearing a lot from suicide prevention experts about the terrible cost of access to firearms in youth suicide as well as youth crime.

One thing that is important to remember is that trigger locks are ideal in preventing impulsive access and in some cases in preventing unauthorized access. They are less effective in preventing gun theft. As with bicycle locks, if you have a lock that goes through the wheel and part of the bicycle, it's still very easy for someone to pick up the bicycle and carry it away - hence the notion that you need more than just trigger locks, particularly for restricted weapons, and the notion of safe storage also including secure containers.

The original regulations tabled in May included both of those for all guns, a uniform standard. We recognize that the regulations introduced in this round are something of a compromise in that there are two different standards for restricted weapons and for unrestricted weapons. We support the regulations as written in the current version, but we are recommending one change that we consider very important.

Currently there is nothing that states anything about access to the lock or combination. It says that firearms have to be stored with a trigger lock, or they have to be disabled, or they have to be stored in a secure locked container or room, but it says nothing about who has access to the keys or the combinations for all of those locks. Particularly when you are dealing with young people, with teenagers, that's a major issue. For example, if firearms are locked in a closet that is secure, but more than the firearms owner have access to that closet, it can represent a real threat to public safety.

.1025

So the one amendment we're asking the committee to seriously consider is the addition of a line that states clearly and unequivocally that the combination or the key to the lock should be accessible only to the authorized firearms owner. We think that will have a significant impact in terms of preventing unauthorized access by other members of the family.

Unauthorized access by other members of the family, remember, is not just a problem in crime. As Mr. MacLellan knows, the McDonald's shooting incident in Cape Breton in which four people were shot involved a gun that a young man had stolen from his father because it hadn't been properly stored. When we're thinking about gun theft, it's important to remember that regrettably you're not just protecting your firearms from strangers who might break into your home. You may also have to keep them away from your own children.

It's not just an issue in crime; it's also a tremendous issue when we're looking at suicide by young people. I don't have to remind you that firearms suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people between the ages of 15 and 24. It's a tremendous burden to those families and to our communities generally.

So we view safe storage as critical. We support the regulations as written. We would like to see that one small change.

In terms of the licensing regulations, again I don't think I should have to remind the committee of the rationale that underlay the requirement to ensure that all firearms owners in Canada had licences as opposed to acquisition certificates when they chose to acquire guns. But given some of the things we've read in the press, it may be worth making a few introductory remarks.

It's important, particularly for the public, to understand that the acquisition certificates under the old legislation were to obtain guns, to acquire guns, not to have guns. Consequently, while there were between 700,000 and 900,000 valid FACs at any one time, there are over two million firearms owners, and by some estimates there are much higher levels of firearms ownership. It's very important to understand that the most conservative estimates are that one-third of firearms owners in Canada currently have valid firearms acquisition certificates. Two-thirds, which could be as many as two million people, have guns and no one knows they have them.

The licensing process is very important to obtain information about who has guns. If you don't have information about who has the guns, you have no way of ensuring that they are in the hands of people who are responsible.

The regulations as drafted differentiate between people who are going to obtain possession-only permits - those are aimed at people who already have guns and are intended to bring them into the system - and the other kinds of licences, which are for people who want to acquire firearms. They are more similar to the existing FAC regime.

I think the changes that have been introduced with the proposed licensing regulations recognize the fact that we have problems in Canada with legally acquired firearms, and that it's important to do as much as we possibly can to remove firearms from the hands of people considered a risk to themselves or to others. We've had some horrific examples of the results when the system fails.

That isn't to say that the regulations in themselves are a panacea. It's very clear that regulations are words on paper unless they're adequately enforced, so that has to go with the regulations.

One of the most striking examples, which I believe you heard about yesterday from some of the women's groups, was the murder of Rajwar Gakhal and nine members of her family last April in Vernon, British Columbia. There was an inquest into those murders, and it's important to note that the regulations to support Bill C-68 directly address some of the recommendations that came out of that inquest, most specifically the requirement that spouses and former spouses be notified of an applicant for an acquisition licence. So there has been a distinction made between people who currently own firearms and people who intend to acquire them for the first time.

.1030

We had a great deal of consultation on the issue of spousal notification, with the police as well as with many women's groups, and our position is that the regulations as written represent an appropriate response to very serious concerns about public safety.

It's also important to remember that spousal notification is not simply about the safety of women, which is often the way it's couched. In many cases there may be risks of suicide and there may be risks of violence in the family involving more than husbands and wives. The process of ensuring that there's some measure of contact with a family member or a former family member will go a long way to ensuring that problems are brought to the attention of the police.

The other point that has to be emphasized is that spousal notification is not spousal consent. A lot of people have talked about how angry, hostile former spouses will prevent people from obtaining firearms. The point of spousal notification is simply to obtain information. The police then will make their decision based on an investigation. That's very important to emphasize. And all of the appeal processes currently in place will continue to apply.

The other thing that's particularly important with the new regulations, in our view, is the relaxing of the guidelines for the definitions of the references. Previously the references for a firearms acquisition certificate included the same classes of people that are typically on a passport. We view the relaxation of those requirements as an appropriate measure to make it easier for people to obtain references. At the same time the added level of responsibility those references are taking is appropriate in that they are now expected to write that to the best of their knowledge the individual is not a risk to public safety. So our position on the licensing regulations is that we support them as written.

In terms of the authorizations to carry restricted weapons and prohibited firearms, we support the proposed regulations as written. We just want to reiterate that we believe strict controls on handguns are absolutely essential. You have heard in previous committees and you will hear over and over again that one of the very important things that differentiates Canada from the United States and has accounted for the tremendous difference in levels of public safety is the fact that we have historically maintained strict controls on handguns. It's essential to continue to maintain those supports. We have no problem, though, with efforts to streamline the processes for gun-owners, provided rigour is maintained. Similarly, the conditions for transferring firearms and other weapons appear appropriate.

On fee schedules, we have historically argued for cost recovery in the fees. In our opinion the fees that have been established for the new regime of licences are very low and very reasonable. There are very few other things you can get in this society for the price you'll be able to get for firearms registrations and firearms licences.

We support the notion of the sliding scale to encourage early compliance. One of the things we would like to see is the government taking a much more proactive role in ensuring the community is aware of what the fees are. We continue to hear members of Parliament, even, misrepresent what the fees are going be. It's very important that people understand that for registration we're talking about a one-time fee of $10 for as many guns as you want. How anybody can argue that is exorbitant quite frankly escapes me.

The last set of regulations I want to comment briefly on are the adaptations for aboriginal peoples. The whole area of aboriginal peoples is of course a very contentious and problematic issue, and we don't at all intend to dwell on it in any detail. Many of the concerns about local circumstances in aboriginal communities are very real and do have to be addressed. In our view, Bill C-68 took a much more aggressive approach to addressing these concerns than the previous legislation, Bill C-17, with the explicit non-derogation clause, with the provisions that band councils can take a more active role, and with the relaxation of the lending provisions.

We view the set of regulations that has been drafted specifically with respect to aboriginal communities as being reasonable. We have no problem with any of them. We would have gone so far as to support exemptions from fees had that been proposed.

.1035

I think it's important, however, to understand - and you'll be hearing from very many aboriginal communities - that because this issue is now so tied up with all sorts of other discussions about treaty rights and self-government, it's our view that there's very little more that the government can do to address the concerns that are being raised. Given the constraints, we think this seems to be a reasonable set of concessions.

It's important to balance concerns about aboriginal treaty rights and constitutional rights with the very real concern for public safety. One of the things we absolutely have to avoid in Canada is the kind of patchwork legislation that has emerged in the United States. So we support the aboriginal adaptation regulations as written.

After that fairly lengthy overview, I'd like to give Superintendent Don McLean of the Winnipeg Police Service an opportunity to add his comments based on the experience in Manitoba, and based on some of the issues that have been raised from a policing perspective.

Superintendent Don McLean (Winnipeg Police Service): Thanks, Wendy.

Good morning. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. Unfortunately, I wish it could have been a little warmer. I was hoping to get a suntan in Ottawa versus the frostbite of Manitoba.

In any event, I appear here first of all as a police officer with some thirty years experience, and also as a representative of our police department. We support the regulations wholeheartedly and as they are written. I also support the amendment that was brought forward by Wendy with regard to who has access to the keys, combination locks, or whatever. Whatever security is afforded by locking devices is only as good as the person who has access to them, so I won't dwell on that any further.

As police officers, we continuously are faced with dealing with crimes of passion, crimes of impulse, and these speak to the safe-storage issues contained within the regulations. We support the licensing and regulation because we quite often see incidents involving firearms, and over 53% of those involve rifles and shotguns. Of that 53%, three-quarters of those are used in criminal incidents.

As the superintendent in charge of all of our crime divisions in Winnipeg, I see these things happening and I'm aware of them. The last full year of statistics was 1995, when we found that three-quarters of those long guns that were seized were used in criminal incidents. The other guns that were seized were your handguns, air guns, antiques and others, with the highest one being 14%. So rifles and shotguns are an integral, very important part of that. We see the licensing and registration of those firearms as important in providing a safer community for our police officers to operate in, as well as in making it possible to be able to make the community as safe as possible.

Our statistics reveal that in cases of suicides and attempted suicides involving firearms, 80% of those were rifles and shotguns. Just last week, we had an armed-and-barricaded incident in which an individual threatened suicide. He was an older gentlemen, a hunter, who had a rifle in his house. Granted, it had a trigger lock on it, but the only reason the very long incident - which I'll cut down to two seconds here - didn't have a bad ending was that he couldn't find the key to that locking device, but he was prepared to do it.

As far as homicides are concerned, we find that of any homicides involving firearms, two-thirds of those involved unregistered firearms, such as your rifles and shotguns. I feel that, as a society, we have the technology to give the police officers out there information that gives them a safer entrance into incidents. The technology is there. We now have the capability of providing the information for that technology, which would allow police officers to attend the scenes of incidents with a great degree of knowledge, which enhances their safety and the safety of anyone else around those incidents.

.1040

I don't have anything else to speak to specifically at this moment, Wendy.

Ms Cukier: Heidi, do you have anything to add? No? Okay.

With that, we're open to questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Cukier, Ms Rathjen, and Superintendent McLean.

We'll now begin with Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye: Thank you ladies, Superintendent, for your remarks. I notice that, as a whole, you support the regulations as written.

However, you are making a recommendation that I would like you to expand upon. Regarding safe storage of firearms, you would like an addition to the effect that the key or combination to the lock should only be accessible to the authorized firearms user.

When there is a young child in a home and medications have to be used, people make sure that they are stored out of the reach of that young child. It is a natural way to exercise caution. People make sure that children do not have access to sharp objects, knives so they won't get hurt inadvertently. If there are stairs. you set up a small fence to keep a toddler from falling down the stairs. In short, a good mother or a good father will take normal, usual precautionary measures to make sure that the whole family is safe. As for the car, you see to it that you park it so that it cannot be started accidentally and injure or kill a family member. But there are no laws or regulations that make it an obligation for parents to act as a good mother or a good father should. It is left up to everybody's common sense.

Yet, you are suggesting here that the regulations should be made more stringent so that it would be mandatory to ensure that the key or combination is only accessible to lawful firearms users; it would mean that, should the key become inadvertently accessible to a non-authorized individual, such an oversight would be subject non only to a civil penalty but possibly even to a criminal penalty.

I'd like to understand why you distinguish between access to a car key and access to the key of the lock on a firearm. Why do you think that such additional precaution is necessary? I'm listening.

Mme Rathjen: First, firearms are required to be locked because they create an exceptional risk regarding suicides, impulsive use and even accidents. For instance, a youth may use them when playing with a child.

You talked about medications. Parents do indeed store them on the top shelves. I think one is more mindful of children in this case.

.1045

Regarding firearms, teenagers might also have an easier access to them. We want firearms to be stored in such a way that burglars and also unauthorized family members can't have access to them.

We see an inconsistency there. If there is a trigger lock on each firearm and if the key hangs close by, on a keyholder... We want any access to firearms to be prohibited to unauthorized persons.

I think it is reasonable. It is in keeping with the spirit of the law. Firearms have to be locked up, whether with a trigger lock or in a closet; however, if that closet is accessible to all family members because that's where the hockey sticks are kept, access to the firearms is not prohibited to unauthorized family members.

Mr. de Savoye: It was in fact my only concern. Otherwise, you support the regulations and we can only be pleased about that.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms Cukier, do you want to say something about that?

Ms Cukier: Yes. I just want to add couple of points.

Right now there's no legislative requirement that you store medications safely or that you keep your car locked, but there is a legislative requirement for safe storage. That's one important difference.

The second important difference is that for many other consumer products that are considered dangerous, such as drugs, there are other controls. Prescription medications are controlled. Certain kinds of medications now come with childproof bottles. Many of the public health practitioners in Quebec, where the problem with firearms suicide is most acute, as you know from the David coroner's inquest, actually recommended that no guns in Canada should be sold without a trigger lock. That was their position.

So I think you'll agree that our position is in fact more moderate than many of your health care professionals in Quebec.

The Chairman: Superintendent McLean.

Supt McLean: I have just one short comment. It's been our experience that although the actions of somebody taking a car illegally or taking the knives out of the drawer or those sorts of things certainly could have unhappy consequences, in most cases they're not final consequences, which certainly would be the case with firearms and usually is. They're much more final and much more devastating. And that's not meant to belittle what can happen when somebody is running amok with a motor vehicle, for instance.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony this morning.

Just to follow up on the question about safeguarding the keys to automobiles, you focused on firearms, but of course more people are killed by impaired drivers, including men and women, far more than those who are killed by firearms. Approximately every six hours one person is killed in this country as a result of impaired drivers driving motor vehicles. It seems that the focus is on the firearms as a threat to the safety of society while other areas are not being considered. That was reflected in the answer to the question of my colleague.

I'd like to ask this question. From of the testimony that we've heard yesterday as well as this morning, museums and re-enactment organizations apparently do not pose a threat to public safety in their use of firearms. Would you be prepared to see an exemption for those groups?

Ms Cukier: I'll take your second point first.

I think the way in which the regulations are currently written, which allows the museums to obtain authorization from the firearms officer, is reasonable. I will also add that just on a logical basis I have trouble with making an argument based on asking someone if they personally have had a problem.

You've said impaired driving is a problem. If you ask any of us if we drive impaired, we would say no, we haven't been problems. If you ask Professor Gary Mauser if there had been any problems at his gun club prior to April 4, 1996, he would have said no. The next day a member of that gun club killed his ex-wife and nine members of his family. So the fact that there is not documented evidence of a problem in the past does not necessarily mean there will not be a problem.

.1050

As I mentioned before, we know from the stats that replica firearms are a big problem in this country. The fact that in some cases we're talking about guns that are imitations, as opposed to real, doesn't mean they can't be misused.

The other point, which is really critical, is there's a huge difference between an institution like the Royal Ontario Museum and many of the other private museums we have right across the country.

So I think the way in which the regulations have been written is appropriate, given the concerns for public safety.

Mr. Ramsay: You were present while the witnesses this morning were giving their testimony. Mr. Feltoe stated very clearly that if these regulations go through, it's going to mean their organization and their activity will become extinct.

Ms Cukier: I don't know a lot about his particular activity of historical re-enactment, but I think that's perhaps an overstatement. Certainly to suggest the Royal Ontario Museum will close its doors because of these regulations is misleading.

The other question I did want to come back to was your point about motor vehicles, because I think it's a very important one. In fact the reason I became interested in firearms control is that I began my career in transportation regulation at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Today in Canada about 3,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents. You're absolutely right. That's a big number; that's a big problem. Almost half as many - 1,400 people - are killed with guns when you include suicides as well as murders and accidents. If you think about how many people use cars on a daily basis versus the number of people, roughly 10% of the population, who use firearms and how infrequently they use them - half the guns in Canada haven't been used in the past year - I think you will have to agree, Mr. Ramsay, that the burden of mortality with firearms is far above the burden of mortality with cars.

If you look at the resources we currently put into licensing drivers, registering vehicles, monitoring the highways, and education programs against drunk driving, again, from my perspective as someone who has worked in public safety in my career, firearms have been far under-regulated relative to motor vehicles in this country.

Mr. Ramsay: Well, of course handguns have been regulated for 62 years in this country.

For you to cast aside as an overstatement the statement made by Mr. Feltoe with regard to the threat these regulations pose to the continued existence of his organization.... I don't think it is satisfactory just to write off the concerns contained within the testimony he gave this morning as overstatement.

Ms Cukier: If I recall, though, when you asked him a supplementary, he said if the regulations were interpreted in a certain way to include replicas of antique firearms, he would have no problem. Was that not basically...?

Mr. Ramsay: That's what he's asking for.

Ms Cukier: My understanding was he said it was a question of the interpretation of the regulations, and it was not related to the regulations per se.

Mr. Ramsay: He was asking for the continuation of the exemption prior to Bill C-68. That's what I understood he was asking for.

My question to you and your group is whether or not you would support the exemption, inasmuch as the activities his organization is engaged in with the use of firearms do not pose even a minimal threat to public safety, which is the goal of the bill?

Ms Cukier: I may have misunderstood. I thought there were two issues. One was historical re-enactments and I thought someone else was arguing for a blanket exemption for museums.

I think the regulations as written are appropriate in terms of how they cover museums, and probably the regulations can be interpreted in a way that is appropriate to accommodate historical re-enactment.

That being said, I will reiterate the fact that replica firearms and firearms that are not real firearms do represent a real threat to public safety. And for people who are on the end of a replica, who don't know whether it's a real gun or not a real gun and who don't understand the nuances between an antique and something that's not an antique, it's a moot point.

So again, from my perspective the regulations as written seem appropriate, and I didn't hear anything today that convinced me otherwise.

.1055

Mr. Ramsay: I can understand that, seeing that you're focused on this particular subject.

I'd like to ask Superintendent McLean this question, and I guess it goes to the fundamental basis of support or non-support for the bill: If a person has a registered firearm in his home and it's under lock and key according to these regulations and the bill, and if that person becomes irrational or simply goes berserk - for lack of a better term - what good do all of these regulations mean? On the converse, the vast majority of people who own firearms do not get to the point where they're irrational, so their firearms are not or have not been kept under lock and key, or they haven't been registered, and they're quite safe.

So the point that has been made to me so many times is that it doesn't matter if the firearm is registered or locked away. If the person who has the key or the combination to the firearm chooses to use that firearm against a member of his family or some other, or against himself in cases of suicide, what aspect of public safety in this particular area do these regulations carry?

Supt McLean: I guess you'll never be able to draft legislation that will cover every possible eventuality. In regard to your example about suicides, a person who is determined to commit suicide sooner or later will find a way to do that. However, the regulations speak to what can be done to protect most of the people most of the time. That's basically where I see them coming from.

Mr. Ramsay: If people are responsible, which they are.... Most of the people most of the time do not go berserk, do not become so irrational that they want to harm another person. But when they do, what good is locking a gun up in a cabinet going to do if there is access to it and someone can get to it within thirty seconds if he decides to use that firearm against himself or some other individual? That's the crux of the question about this whole business of registration. The safe storage has already been there; it's not in this bill.

I've heard it suggested that the registration will make people more sensitive to keeping or abiding by that law. The point I'm making is that the terrible incidents that have happened in this country, with people using firearms against other people, have occurred because people have become irrational and gone, for lack of a better term, berserk. If you're going to leave firearms in my possession, the registration and the safe storage is not going to enhance public safety one iota if I go berserk and I have access to that firearm. So how do you address that?

Yes, I understand the safety procedures of keeping your firearm locked up and away from children and so on. That's understandable and that's supportable. But if you're going to suggest to the people of Canada that when a person goes berserk they're going to be safe from that person simply because the firearm is registered or because it's locked up in a cabinet that he has a key for, I can't follow that argument.

I would like you to respond to that, Superintendent McLean.

Supt McLean: Well, Wendy has some comments too. But first of all, using yourself as an example, if you chose to go berserk at any given second -

Mr. Ramsay: I wouldn't choose to; I would just go berserk.

Supt McLean: Okay, somehow unconsciously or otherwise, there's a decision made to go berserk. If you were to do that in an instant, there is nothing anybody could do anywhere, in any country, that would change that. Generally speaking, however, there is usually an escalation when that happens, be it through domestic violence or something else. There is a history, there is a series of events taking place, and we become aware of it as a police force. Knowing that you have certain guns or do certain things allows us the opportunity to have the knowledge, and therefore hopefully be able to take steps before that disastrous event happens.

.1100

Mr. Ramsay: Was there a series of events with Mr. Lépine?

Ms Cukier: He was -

Mr. Ramsay: I'm speaking about the example you gave.

Ms Cukier: Yes. With just about any case you can identify there's a history. Had there been more information available and acted upon by the police, and had there been a law in place to ensure that this information was available, they could have intervened.

Lépine was expelled from the army for antisocial behaviour. He should not, and probably under the current regime would not, have been given legal access to a firearm.

You're absolutely right - a highly motivated killer will find a way to kill. But we in Canada are currently making it far too easy for people to get legal access to firearms. While you can't, as they say, use legislation to prevent all incidents, it's very clear that in many of the circumstances, whether you're talking suicide or domestic violence, as Superintendent McLean said, there's a pattern of abuse that escalates. If police know that guns are present early in that cycle, they can remove them and reduce the likelihood that it will end in tragedy.

We issue 17,000 prohibition orders every year in this country against people who are considered to be a risk to themselves or their communities. How do the police enforce them? Hello, do you have guns? May I have them, please? It makes no sense at all. You can't enforce safe storage regulations if you have no record of who owns firearms.

The notion that the opponents of this legislation like to constantly bring up, which is that you can kill just as easily with a registered gun, is like saying you can drive your car into a tree just as easily if it's licensed. But the fact that we license drivers and register cars and enforce the law means that our roads are much safer today than they were even 15 years ago.

The Chairman: Ms Whelan.

Ms Whelan: There seems to be some misunderstanding of what took place earlier this morning. Ms Cukier, maybe you don't realize it, but you fell right into the trap of misunderstanding the difference between an original, a replica and a reproduction. Mr. Feltoe was trying to explain at the beginning that you can use an original and you can use a replica in these historical...but right now, reproduction doesn't fit with the way the legislation or the regulations are written. That's a great problem. So your arguments about replicas don't apply in this situation.

I think there's some misunderstanding. As the Department of Justice defines it, since 1898 you're talking about different types of weapons or firearms. We're talking about pre-1898. That's what Mr. Feltoe was talking about, and I think he explained very clearly that they have not been used in any crime for 88 years. Doesn't that say that it's not anything to do with public safety?

He also explained that public safety is their first concern. They do their own training because as the legislation is written, it doesn't apply to those types of firearms whatsoever. It doesn't instil in them any kind of confidence in anyone who would be using them or participating...that they have the proper training. So we just have to be clear on what we're talking about.

I know your group has been involved since day one in consultations. I think if you had heard earlier, you'd realize that the Canadian Museums Association and the historical re-enactors were an afterthought. If you go back to the legislation in the early 1990s, there were exemptions for museums for the very reason that they're a different type of class. We have to be careful, when we talk about what's in a museum and the value museums have, that their artifacts aren't devalued in any way by the legislation or the regulations. Right now we're dealing with regulations and there seems to be some difficulty.

Yesterday we had before us a gentleman who talked about manufacturers of guns and serial numbers and the fact that they reuse serial numbers every five years. It's a huge problem if we're talking about registering by serial number.

I agree with the principle. I agree that since 1977 long arms in Canada have been registered to a certain extent by the fact that people have had to have a valid FAC to purchase one. But in 1977 we didn't have the technology we have today, and we didn't foresee different things happening like person A buying it and selling it to person C, who didn't have one.

My driver's licence has changed five times in fifteen years, yet I haven't protested the changes. I think people have to recognize that we're just adapting legislation to meet the times, and I don't have any difficulty with that.

.1105

I recognize that your group supports the majority of the regulations, but you also make a statement in your paper that, given the problems with illegal importation of firearms by individuals and the costs of maintaining secure borders, the $50 fee for visitors does not seem unreasonable. I disagree with that. I really have strong reservations about that.

I come from a border community, and I don't think that fee is going to encourage anyone to declare their gun at the border. In fact it may just do the opposite, whereas right now they can be declared, and if they're legal they can be left at the border and picked up at the border. I'm very concerned that this is going to deter people from doing that, so we're going to have more illegal firearms in Canada crossing the border than we did before.

I can give you the example of what's happening in Windsor right now, with Detroit across the way. The casino has been marvellous, but there has been a 300% increase in handguns seized at the border because people do not understand our laws. They do not understand that if they declare it, they can leave it there and pick it up on the way out. They do not realize they should not bring it with them.

If you charge a $50 fee, you're just asking, in my opinion, for further problems along that way. I'm very concerned about that.

Ms Cukier: I grew up in St. Catharines, so I know what it's like to grow up in a border town. All I can say is you have to distinguish between the people who are coming into Canada with handguns in their glove compartments and don't realize they're not allowed to do that....

Those people are not going to declare and register their guns anyway, unless you have a very aggressive public relations campaign, with big signs saying: ``We are going to take away not only your gun but also your car if you try to come into our country with an unregistered gun''.

The people who are casually coming into the country with their guns because they don't understand are very different from people who are coming up here for a hunting expedition or to go fishing in northern communities. So I'm not sure I agree with your notion that those two things are directly related.

The other thing is we pay airport taxes now. Not in the Toronto airport, but there are lots of airports you go through where they hit you for $20 as you go through the turnstile. It's a cost of doing business.

There may be some requirement to adjust the fees, but I have a fair amount of confidence, given what I have seen with the other fees, that the Department of Justice has looked very carefully at the costs associated with regulating. If somebody's coming up here for a vacation, I don't think it's an exorbitant amount for them to have to pay, given the other costs.

We heard about people in historical re-enactments spending $3,000 on their costumes. Well, if they're spending $3,000 on their costumes, I'm not sure you can then make the argument that the incremental costs associated with firearms are that out of range. I would make the same argument about people coming to Canada on hunting expeditions, etc.

The flip side of that is, as Heidi has pointed out in the past, lots of people come to Canada because our cities are safe. One of the booming businesses in Canada is the convention business, and the reasons Vancouver and Toronto are selected over large American cities is that they're safe. So you can turn those economic arguments backwards and forwards.

As I said, our position, based on our perspective, is we support the regulations as written and we'll leave it to the committee and the Minister of Justice to determine whether or not the concerns you've heard persuade you that concessions are needed. They haven't persuaded me, but I have a different set of priorities.

Ms Whelan: With all due respect, Ms Cukier, I personally think a number of different things go into being a volunteer in a different organization or a different association. As Mr. Feltoe explained in the earlier session, they do go to extreme costs to be a volunteer. To have government regulation on top of that, at an additional cost, for no reason - it's not a safety reason; it's really no reason - as well as the prohibitive....

If you read the regulations, you'd understand what it means for them: the number of letters they're going to have to have going back and forth, the inconvenience, the inability to participate. To go from $150 to $15, to go from $1,025 down to probably $100.... Those costs to the communities are great. I take exception to your comments based on that, because you have to look at everything from all sides.

I recognize your group's point of view and I support many of the things you say in your presentation. I recognize safety as being important. I also recognize that historical re-enactors have valid concerns and Canadian museums have valid concerns.

I hope that when witnesses come before this group, especially witnesses who have been involved in full participation and full consultation since day one, unlike other witnesses and other people who haven't had those same advantages, you could somehow take that into consideration and not throw to us that you support it as it is, but if we make one change, you may not support it. I think there are some things that have been missed.

.1110

Ms Cukier: I'm sorry, but I think you have misinterpreted what I said.

Ms Whelan: Maybe I have.

Ms Cukier: I said that we support it as it's written. I didn't say we will oppose any changes. In fact, I think I said very clearly that I would defer to the committee and to the Minister of Justice in terms of assessing the other arguments, because there are many other things to consider. So please don't assume from what I was saying that if you make a change, we're going to oppose the legislation.

Ms Whelan: Okay. That's my concern.

Ms Cukier: No.

Ms Whelan: I just think that we all have to come here and realize that we come from different backgrounds.

Ms Cukier: No. I'm sorry.

Ms Whelan: I would never question what the superintendent you have with you has to say because I don't have any experience in law enforcement.

Ms Cukier: Please don't misunderstand me. I'll say it again clearly. We support the legislation as written. We'll leave it to the committee and to the Minister of Justice to decide whether any minor changes are required. It's just that from our perspective and from what I've heard, nothing has persuaded me to advocate that changes are required. But just to make this clear, you may be persuaded and that may be what the committee decides.

Ms Whelan: You did make an interesting point. Maybe it's something the committee could recommend to the Minister of Justice with regard to our border communities. There is a need to educate people coming across the border. There's one sign halfway through the tunnel at Windsor that tells you handguns are prohibited in Canada. It's kind of late, because you're halfway through the tunnel.

Ms Cukier: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. This is a tangent, but it is something that concerns me greatly.

People now know that if they try to illegally import drugs into our country, they run the risk of losing their car. There's just no question about it. If you're bringing drugs into the United States, you can lose everything. And I don't understand why we can't take similar measures with respect to cars and to firearms and why we can't be very aggressive in terms of communicating that when you come to Canada you live by our rules.

Ms Whelan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Whelan.

Thank you very much, Ms Cukier, Ms Rathjen, and Superintendent McLean. We appreciate your testimony this morning. Your presentation was very helpful.

We'll now take a five-minute break before our next witness.

.1112

.1121

The Chairman: Could I have your attention for just a minute, please?

I just want to put this on the record. Our witness scheduled for 11 a.m., Mr. Dave Tomlinson, national president of the National Firearms Association, is unable to appear through videoconferencing from Edmonton.

We will be adjourning now until 1 p.m. We expected to be working through to one o'clock, so we made arrangements for a meal to be brought in. It will of course be brought in because we can't cancel it at this point, so we will have a meal between noon and one, but the sessions are cancelled and we will resume at one o'clock this afternoon.

Return to Committee Home Page